- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
I guess I just question whether the "welker centric" offense is the way to go...so far in our playoff losses we haven't been able to even put up 20points...and thats pathetic.
since switching over to a more tight-end oriented offense with Hernandez/Gronkowski, welkers role sort of becomes redundant....sure we've been able to put up great stats in the regular season...but i'm more concerned about the post-season where teams have learned how to bottle up this passing attack because it's too predictable.
I view acquiring a physical mis-match outside the hash-marks WR and defensive help as more of a priority than giving welker 10-11million$$ IMO
I would like to see McDaniels draft a WR early(this guy drafted some absolute studs for Denver). given that Gronk/hernandez stay healthy I feel like an offense of:
Outside WR/Gronk/Hernandez/Lloyd would be much harder to defend.
1.) Welker's role is not redundant. That's a fallacy. There's only one receiver on the team that does close to what Welker does, and that's Hernandez. However, Hernandez is nowhere near as capable of getting open in the small spaces as is Welker.
2.) The notion of points is really not accurate either. In 2007, the offense was Moss-Centric: 14 points. In 2009, Welker didn't play: 14 points. In 2010, the Brady screen INT wasn't to Welker and the drop in the endzone was to the TE: 21 points. In 2011, with Gronk out: 17 points.
It's not about Welker-centric. It's about the offense in general.
2001 - 16, 24 and 20
2003 - 17, 24 and 32
2004 - 20, 41 and 24
2005 - 28 and 13
2006 - 37, 24 and 34
2007 - 31, 21 and 14
2009 - 14
2010 - 21
2011 - 45, 23 and 17
2012 - 41 and 13
The question we need to answer is: How much of the problem is the offensive game planning, how much is injury/freak turnovers, and how much is other factors like the opposing game plan, opposing defensive style, etc....? The consistency of low scoring games essentially rules out Welkercentrism as the problem.